MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

This revision has been filed questioning the acquittal of Muhammad Latif son of Faqir Muhammad respondent from the charge under section 302. P.P.C. for committing murder of Mst. Rashidan, his wife by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 12-4-1990.

2. The prosecution case m brief is that on 21-8-1986 report was lodged by the complainant that Abdul Shakoor brother of appellant and nephew of complainant informed him that at about 10 a.m. Rashidan Bibi alias Anwari daughter of complainant and wife of appellant died because of the electric shocks with iron press. The complainant on receipt of this information, reached at the spot, reported the matter to the police and got conducted the post-mortem of the dead body. On the basis of the post-mortem examination case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered against the appellant.

3. There being no direct evidence in the case, the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence and examined formal witnesses. Muhammad Hanif first cousin of the deceased appeared as P. W.4 who stated that respondent husband of deceased wanted to contract a second marriage for which reasons appellant used to quarrel with deceased and he tried to reconcile the relations between the parties but failed. The prosecution case is based on medical evidence coupled with the fact that deceased was found lying injured and died in the house of the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injuries on the person of the deceased were the result of her death because the evidence with regard to the dispute between the spouses over the matter of second marriage by the appellant coupled with the recovery of dead body of the deceased established the charge against the appellant. I am afraid, there is no evidence available on the record to suggest that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by the appellant. The deceased being wife of the appellant was living in the same house and therefore, the recovery of dead body from the house alone in no way is an evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of offence. The learned counsel relying upon the statement of P. W.4 argued `that the appellant confessed his guilt before the P.W. and that the evidence of extra judicial confession coupled with the medical evidence and other circumstances proves the case beyond reasonable doubt is without any force. There is nothing in the statement of P.W.4 except that the appellant with other came to him and confessed his guilt. The evidence does not disclose that which guilt was confessed by the appellant. The statement of P. W.4 does not disclose detail of the confession with necessary and material facts, in absence of which there can be no confession. In fact the evidence of extra judicial confession is not available in the present case.

5. The prosecution has not been able to bring any evidence on the record direct or indirect to connect the accused with the commission of offence and B therefore, the acquittal of the accused does not call for interference. I see no merits in this revision which fails and is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-1797/L Petition dismissed.